Almost 1/3 of all homicides in my county 2010-16 were police killings

[SneekyNinja]

It should pay taxes on its productivity. Bill Gates came up with that, and it isn't a bad idea.

I don't think robots earn money nor would be required to.

Maintenance, fuel and taxes on any profits would be managed by their owner, no?

 

[ttystikk]

We are still a long way off that point. We don't have a working clean energy system yet, and that is required for the next step of automation you describe . If safe renewable was invented/perfected right now it would still take a good 10+ years for established country's to logistically make it happen, then a further 10+ years to step up automation.

In the long run it's a good thing. The less work>money>food on offer means family's will have less children. It's better that half a billion couples have 2 children each as we can sustain it ecologically and economically. Rather than 7 billion people doing what ever they want.. leading to, well.. look around.

It sounds like a callus way of thinking but read up on the current population escalation for yourself over the last 100 years. It's a far worse place to be in 20 years than your automation fears.

COMPLETELY backwards; industrialized nations have dropped below replacement level of reproduction when they had PLENTY of all the above, not when there were shortages. Middle class living and security is the proven antidote for overpopulation. Insecurity means people have more kids, because children are the last resort for security.

Please do more reading on the subject.

 

[StonerCol]

Do you not think sentient robots are a possibility?

The only way that will happen is with hybrids. Take a human brain and put it into a robot. That's what'll happen imo, rather than scientists learning how to recreate the human brain in computer form.
Computers work on 1's and 0's...on or off, yes or no. Human emotional responses and thought processes don't. I don't believe it will be possible to interface the two unless a hybrid is built using a human brain.

 

[ttystikk]

I disagree that we are still a long way away from that point. The speed of technological change increases exponentially and so 20 years of change in the 21st century is equal to maybe twice that, or more, in the 20th/19th centuries. We pretty much have driverless cars, it's really just fine-tuning that's left in terms of their overall development. We have robots in factories such as car plants. We have incredible software such as NASA uses to send probes billions of miles away. Add that altogether and it seems very close to me. 20 years is probably way off, maybe less than 15.
In terms of a working clean energy system that is very close too. If there was universal political will that could be solved very quickly. Wind/Solar/Wave technology is increasing very quickly. A lot of energy used in factories etc is required for humans but not robots. Lighting, A/C etc won't really be needed for robots, they'll be able to work in near-dark situations and temps. won't affect them like they do humans. So, this means that much less energy will be required to run a plant full of robots. Battery technology is increasing rapidly and that will replace the need for so much electricity from a mains supply.
Automation and the logistics for making renewables happen will occur at the same time so it won't be 10 + 10 years, it'll more likely be 10-15 years total.

In terms of the population I agree that it is a major problem. Unfortunately though many people in countries in Africa or in India, Bangladesh etc don't temper their breeding based upon food availability. It may happen in the US/Europe but they will be the exception not the rule. People won't look ahead and think "We need to have less kids" it'll be a case of food being fought over to feed those populations.

The big problem as I see it, or one of the big problems is that the Corporates don't address problems untill/unless it affect their profits. This means that problems will occur and THEN a solution will be sought, rather than trying to stop those problems occuring in the first place.
Robots don't require food/water. That will push their development/use even quicker as food becomes harder to provide for the burgeoning world population.
Either way, the future doesn't look great.

Where is your evidence that such nations won't curb their population growth if they gain middle class standards of living?

Sounds pretty prejudiced to me.

 

[schuylaar]

View attachment 3991594
Stik you have it easy, besides who else goes to work with a gun on their hip

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Russia/Crime

i get it..you want us to be russia..

nobody cares about that shithole.

pass.

 

[SneekyNinja]

The only way that will happen is with hybrids. Take a human brain and put it into a robot. That's what'll happen imo, rather than scientists learning how to recreate the human brain in computer form.
Computers work on 1's and 0's...on or off, yes or no. Human emotional responses and thought processes don't. I don't believe it will be possible to interface the two unless a hybrid is built using a human brain.

You know the human brain does essentially work on 1's and 0's, right?

Electrical signals are either high or low, they're just interpreted differently in a CPU versus a brain.

In any logic system you have an input that is processed and produces an output, the exact operation of the mechanism in the middle is unimportant overall.

 

[StonerCol]

Where is your evidence that such nations won't curb their population growth if they gain middle class standards of living?

Sounds pretty prejudiced to me.

I think such nations will curb their population growth IF they gain middle class standards. The issue in, for example India, is that the govt. is spending vast amounts of money on nuclear weapons and space exploration instead of education and health programs. So many people are uneducated and have little chance of changing that. The existing Middle Class in India is growing but very slowly and is still very small compared to the population of over 1 billion. The caste system is still in operation and that is a barrier to change. Religion can also play a part. There have been quite a few cases where a western aid agency has gone into a village to give free innoculations and they were turned away by the village elder who believed it was a conspiracy to kill the people. The challenges are so diverse and entrenched that they are so difficult to overcome. Trying to pull close to a billion people into a Middle Class existence is nigh on impossible in somewhere such as India.

 

[StonerCol]

You know the human brain does essentially work on 1's and 0's, right?

No it doesn't. The human brain is neither digital nor analogue. It works by chemical signals/pathways within neurons. Neurons are either fired or not - which can be likened to digital on or off - but within them are the chemical signals.

Emotions for example aren't simply on or off, they can vary just like electrical current in analogue.

 

[ttystikk]

Automation - robots - is going to destroy a lot of jobs. There won't be anything to replace those jobs. The lower skilled workers won't be able to get work. They won't be able to "upskill" because they won't have had the education for high tech jobs and even if they could, the competition for those jobs will be so fierce it'll be hundreds or thousands of workers after each job. Corporate America/UK/Wherever won't be interested in creating jobs, only profit, and robots will be cheaper than employing a human. It won't be too long before robots do the jobs of cops on the street - complete with firearms - and who is going to control them? How are you going to complain about a robot that shot an innocent bystander?
Add the factors of a severly damaged environment into the mix and it is going to get really really ugly.
This isn't too far away from happening. Maybe 10-20 years. The future doesn't look good at all. It's depressing!

All of this may be true, but my comment was more about the fact that rich people and large corporations pay far less than their fair share of taxes and such is destroying our society, both nationally and globally.

 

[ttystikk]

I don't think robots earn money nor would be required to.

Maintenance, fuel and taxes on any profits would be managed by their owner, no?

Can tax the work product.

 

[ttystikk]

The only way that will happen is with hybrids. Take a human brain and put it into a robot. That's what'll happen imo, rather than scientists learning how to recreate the human brain in computer form.
Computers work on 1's and 0's...on or off, yes or no. Human emotional responses and thought processes don't. I don't believe it will be possible to interface the two unless a hybrid is built using a human brain.

I don't think emotions are required for sentience. I think self awareness is, and that day is coming. Whether the personality is like HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Skynet from Terminator or P1 from The Adolescence of P1 (obscure sci fi novel from the 1970s) remains to be seen and I suspect will be up to us.

 

[StonerCol]

All of this may be true, but my comment was more about the fact that rich people and large corporations pay far less than their fair share of taxes and such is destroying our society, both nationally and globally.

I read an article a couple of months ago that said there was 246 trillion dollars of unpaid corporate taxes worldwide. That would solve a lot of problems!

 

[ttystikk]

No it doesn't. The human brain is neither digital nor analogue. It works by chemical signals/pathways within neurons. Neurons are either fired or not - which can be likened to digital on or off - but within them are the chemical signals.

Emotions for example aren't simply on or off, they can vary just like electrical current in analogue.

Digital devices can certainly quantify, my pH meter does it just fine. Emotions are no different.

People have emotions and they respond to them differently. I suggest this is also a function of programming.

 

[StonerCol]

I don't think emotions are required for sentience

I agree.

 

[greg nr]

Having done both, i can tell you they are very different.

Issac Asimov was a brilliant man.

He was, but I loved Robin Williams in the part......

 

[Jimdamick]

I told you I'd be back. Uncle Buck is the pedophile though.

You know the human brain does essentially work on 1's and 0's, right?

Electrical signals are either high or low, they're just interpreted differently in a CPU versus a brain.

In any logic system you have an input that is processed and produces an output, the exact operation of the mechanism in the middle is unimportant overall.

Unless your name is tampee, then it runs on all zeros

 

[StonerCol]

Digital devices can certainly quantify, my pH meter does it just fine. Emotions are no different.

Completely disagree.Your pH meter can quantify - express the quantity of pH - because that's what the chips/sensors in it are programmed to do. The human brain experiences emotions - the key being plural. Your pH meter won't quantify lots of different things at the same time where they interplay off of each other and are different in one pH meter to the next. 2 pH meters will measure a pH of say 6.5 and both will always give you 6.5 - assuming they are working correctly - the human brain expresses emotions in different ways in different people. This is the big difference. A computer will give you the same answer every time for the same input. whereas an emotional response will vary greatly.

 

[greg nr]

I don't think robots earn money nor would be required to.

Maintenance, fuel and taxes on any profits would be managed by their owner, no?

Sounds like a definition of slavery, if the worker were human........

 

[ttystikk]

The finding (homicide) by the medical examiner is a medical classification. It is not a legal or criminal determination. It refers to a death resulting from a volitional act committed by another person. So the fact that they had to add that "the coroner's office ruled the deaths as a homicide" tells me whoever published this is trying to make it look like they were all unjustifiable shootings. I'm not saying that were all justifiable but I also don't like hearing one side of a story. At lease give a few examples of how the persons killed by the police were innocent before calling the police the most murderous gangsters in the street...

I think the law is making it too easy to justify murder by cop.

 

[ttystikk]

i get it..you want us to be russia..

nobody cares about that shithole.

pass.

Speak for yourself.

There's nothing wrong with Russia that better government wouldn't be able to solve.

The People must believe it is possible and that's been a long standing problem, going all the way back to the Tzars.